Contributions to https://mwvsciencefair.wikispaces.com/ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. 
Portions not contributed by visitors are Copyright 2018 Tangient LLC
TES: The largest network of teachers in the world
Portions not contributed by visitors are Copyright 2018 Tangient LLC
TES: The largest network of teachers in the world
Loading...
Model trains: A model.
Table of Contents
Problem Scenario:
In theory, the idea was simple: one train takes x seconds to complete function f like this: In hypothetical theoretical trial 1 f takes x seconds. Thus, when power is doubled, x to complete f is halved like this: In hypothetical theoretical trial 2 with power p doubled f = x.5; i.e., the time should be halved. Though it seems that is not the case. I suppose that if things always made sense, then there wouldn't be much use for scientists...dang. One day, while I was playing with my trains as a smaller boy I noticed something was wrong... I would put 6 balls in each carriage and then run the trains a couple times and have a ‘race’ (which barely made it around) then take three out and run it again just for fun and I could do something with LEGO or Hotwheels as well. What I wondered was why the times to go around were visibly similar. Perhaps too similar...? Granted, the differences between one and two trains is not obvious over mere fractions of a second and one foot straight, no, instead mine ran in circles and the momentum kept it going (so did the motor) until I stopped it.In truth, the real point of this experiment was to endorse the fact that unsupported theory
Please Note the Note:
NOTE: This page contains some information that isn't up-to-date, though all definitions are correct!Broad Question
Do things always follow theory...?Specific Question
If I double the amount of work that a source of kinetic energy (in this case a model train motor) is doing on a mass will the time actually cut in half like it should?Hypothesis
I hypothesize that doubling the power will slice the time in half. (Fair point, isn't it?)Note: This chart is no longer out of date.
Note: 1 second is equal to about 29.676767676767... VIDEO frames, for my purposes I'll use 30 to represent one second.
Note: The speed at which a MOVIE, FILM, or other PRODUCTION runs is at 24 frames per second; VIDEOS run at Approximately 30 frames per second.
Nota Bena: each SWU weighs about 12 g;[1] see the bottom of this page for a more exact measure.
We're Sorry,
But The Epic Train Chart cannot be displayed. An updated version can be found at Graph in Google DocsVariables
Independent Variable:
Number of SWU(s)Number of Trains
Dependent Variable:
Time Taken (Speed)Variables That Need To Be Controlled:
Power Input.Used track length.
Implement used to record time.
Vocabulary List That Needs Explanation
Torque- n., Ability to overcome resistance; the measurement of the ability of a rotating gear or shaft to overcome turning resistance (Friction).Horsepower- n., a foot-pound-second unit of power, equivalent to 550 foot-pounds per second (torque), or 745.7 watts.
Kinetic- adj., relating to, characterized by or caused by motion. Kinetic energy is moving energy.
Energy- n., a measure of this capacity, expressed as the work that it does in changing to some specific reference state.
Work- v., infin., to exert force on an object, n., the act of exerting force on an object.
Physics- n., the part of science in which one works with energy, force, matter and motion.
-Courtesy Dictionary.com
General Plan
Potential Problems And Solutions
1.The video-stopwatch technique could fail...- I could use the actual stopwatch.
2.One train alone could fail to have enough potential energy to capacitate more than a SWU or two...- Luckily this didn't happen; mind you it couldn't have, because I tested the capacity of one and two trains and they both worked or else I wouldn't have chosen this experiment. (No solutions were found, error 908.)
3.The cat jumps on the experiment mid-trial and eats the written data...Safety Or Environmental Concerns
Risk of electrocutionCalculated risk of carbon foot print (total approx 2253 g of carbon emissions)
Experimental Design
Number Of Trials:
18; 6 trials (A, B, C, D, E, and F), 3 runs of each trial.When data will be collected:
March 28th and 29th; Revised and Averaged on the 30th and 31stNumber of Observations:
6, I think.Where will data be collected?:
On my dining room table.Resources and Budget Table
Government Canada/Canadian Pacific Rail Co./Canadian National Rail Co./Royal Canadian Rail and Canal Ministry, Rail Dept.*
Government Canada/Canadian Pacific Rail Co./Canadian National Rail Co./Royal Canadian Rail and Canal Ministry, Rail Dept.*
Data Table
00:00:00;00h : m : s ; f
Trains:
SWU(s)
Note: The speed at which a MOVIE, FILM, or other PRODUCTION runs is 24 frames per second; VIDEOS run at Approximately 30 frames per second.
Graph in Google Docs, which is now finished.
Background Research
Some questions have been raised about energy:- If energy, like matter, is never lost nor created, where does it 'go' when it is not obviously turned into another form? (Potential, thermal, chemical, kinetic, etc.) (e.g., I slowly and gently push a book on table a couple of centimetres across (with my hand, containing chemical, kinetic, and potenial energy) (i.e, No obvious heat is output, etc.).
- If energy, like matter, is never lost or created, where did it come from in the first place?
- Are models always correct?
Lets start with the last one:A model's credibility depends on how specific and accurate it is.
For some reason, the general public agrees that financial and economics models are never correct; a quite generally respected one allegedly sent [the] U.S. of A. into a depression in 2008, one such that we have barely recovered from today.To be fair, nothing is ever always correct, but at least an accurate scientific model portrays the results close to the full scale reality.
The second one is rather hard to answer, because this question befuddles today's most respected scientists.
I have just been informed that I am not permitted to give any feedback whatsoever on this question because (apparently) I know nothing of the subject and therefore I don't 'rank' high enough to have any say whatsoever. Apparently.
That is not true. I know little but even that could be enough to give a rough understanding of it.
But no.
Anyway.
The first one is rather interesting; let's start at the beginning: My blood is pumped from my heart on my brain's orders (chemical),(who, incidentally would be regarded as quite numb (literally, you can't feel anything on/in your brain tissue) if he failed to) through my veins (kinetic) to my muscles where the oxygen is sucked out of the blood cells and 'feeds' the muscle cell structure at which point the cell tissues contract (for that is all they can do; if you want to do anything other than contract you have to use combinations of muscles...) causing my hand to move the book across the table where there is obviously friction, and therefore heat because aside from that, then, where else could the energy have gone, well, that is what I am here to tell you--that it has turned into a ridiculously unmeasurable amount of heat and at which point you, after reading this ridiculously long run-on sentence, realize that the whole process is a tad more complex than what has been depicted here and would take two breaths in the stead of one that it has taken me.
Then, after my easily distracted side (My larger side, obviously.) stops with the ridiculousness the heat is either (a) dispersed into the air and causes global warming, or (b) because it is energy it sometimes changes to kinetic energy and causes the [air]* to move slightly to slightly that this theory is widely disregarded as a possibility. The following theories are courtesy http://www.physforum.com and its contributors; I will note the screen names of the contributors from http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4449.
Upisoft said, "There is [a] "Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy". It does not "go" anywhere. It is rendered useless, because of the [theory of] entropy."
MDT said, "[One] possible answer is connected to the expanding universe. This expansion red shifts energy thereby dissipating its energy value. I guess this means it goes, at least in part, into the entropy value of the expansion, i.e., entropy is endothermic."
*Atmosphere, whatever the case might be...
References
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4449.
Detailed Procedure
Appendix A:
1.Modify One (1) 2x4 (I used Oak) to a length of 4 to 4 and 1/2 feet long (1 metre 121.92 cm to 1 metre 137.16 cm).2.Attach track.
3.Attach pulley in center of wood at one end.
4.Attach switchboard/control panel/output box to wood. (You have made Appendix A.)
5.Be ready assemble appendix B next...
Appendix B:
6.Put the cat out.7.Procure train ensemble from Government Canada/Canadian Pacific Rail Co./Canadian National Rail Co./Royal Canadian Rail and Canal Ministry, Rail Dept.
8.Assemble the ensemble (String, Train(s), Cloth Bag, Electrical Tape).(You have created Appendix B.)
9.Test in an inconspicuous area.
10.Oh, sorry, plug it in.
10.1.Now you can run the experiment:
Operating Instructions
11.Run the experiment.12.If the cat has come in again, THROW IT OUT.
13.Record the data in seconds and frames.
14.Set the tea things and prepare some scones...
Results
All Raw Data
See original data table at this link: Graph in Google Docs
Graphs
Graph in Google Docs
Photo list...
Paste the following into the URL bar and watch the video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Vg07hthBQ
Data Analysis
While doubling the power, both trains took about two-thirds to three-quarters of the time it took for one train to do itin the stead of slicing that time in half like I "predicted" it would.
Conclusion
The data doesn't support my hypothesis which is because I have Carefully Constructed my hypothesis in such a manner that it was wrong on purpose, and the idea was that, even thoughDiscussion
The underlying idea though fairly invisible was that theory isn't to be trusted all the time. My data did not support my hypothesis not because I am daft but because I have Carefully Constructed my hypothesis so that it would be wrong to prove a point that when people do something or say something or think something without any evidence, well, they shouldn't, really , unless of course it doesn't matter, such as something petty (I don't think in pettiances so I'm not going to waste my time thinking of one) or something that is really and truly insignificant, then it's not a huge impact in the scheme of things.Abstract
What I've done is taken trains, weights and physics to figure out (though I already knew that and se the hypothesis up accordingly) that the theory doesn't apply where it should.In theory, the idea was simple: one train takes x seconds to complete function f like this: In all hypothetical theoreticalities, trial 1 f takes x seconds. Thus, when power is doubled, x to complete f is halved like this: In all hypothetical theoreticalities, trial 2 with power p doubled f (f2) should equal x.5; i.e., theoretically the time should be halved. The reason that it does not halve the time is because adding a second train only doubles the power output, not speed (which, for my purposes is being represented as time to travel a certain distance.) and so the time taken has only had about 25% lopped off it. It is not, though, and incidentally I couldn't think how to do a project as to why things don't follow theory because that is even hard to categorise (though, come to think of it, I might categorise it as anthropology or sociology or even psychology or nuerology.). This is what I've come up with to confirm that it doesn't follow theory and to firm up that the why bit is rather confusing and even more so to do a project on the bit about as to why. But that is next year. Maybe. Not.
Legal
All other text that is not the sole and original author’s beliefs, views, ideas, explanations, and responses that are direct results of the author’s imagination in this document is (a)the ideas in part of a first-, third-, or non-party website or other source that have been modified or otherwise changed to (1) fit the author’s needs, (2) to avoid plagiarism, or (3) to fit the author’s beliefs and views on the subject, or they are (b) are ideas, explanations, and responses that are direct results of the author’s imagination, and are therefore the intellectual property of the sole and original author though the ideas on this page, expressed in the manner they are and endure that they are copyright Creative Commons. The sole and original author trusts Creative Commons and its affiliates, and rely that in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License they do not and will not distribute the content of this page or any other unless granted by written pemission from the author. Copyright and All rights reserved 1999-2012 Carter Stevens. (C)(copyright) and (r)(all rights reserved) applies to all text in this document that has not been overwritten, rewritten or modified to fit the author’s needs, and thus it is a direct representation of the original views, ideas, and beliefs of the sole original author though in print form it is the property of Tangient LLC and Creative Commons under thier respective property licenses. This is version 2.0 of this statement; it has been revised more than once to respect the rights of Tangient LLC and Creative Commons.